hydra_save

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses concrete behaviors beyond annotations: the exact file destination, the inclusion of every block with its author, the 480-px thumbnail, naming constraints, and the guard that an existing name is refused unless overwrite=true. This is rich, accurate behavioral context and does not contradict the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three dense sentences cover the main behavior, constraints, and examples without waste. The most important action is front-loaded, and the details about naming and overwrite earn their place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a save operation with an output schema available, the description is complete: it states what is saved, where, how naming works, how tags work, and how overwriting is handled. Nothing an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains name character rules and length, the purpose of tags with examples, and the overwrite behavior explicitly. Each of the three parameters is given meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action and resource: 'Save the current composition — every block, with its author — to the sketch library (hydra-mcp/sketches/<name>.json), plus a 480-px thumbnail.' This is far more specific than the title and clearly distinguishes saving from sibling operations like hydra_load or hydra_sketches.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly implies the tool is used to persist the current sketch, but it does not explicitly explain when to choose it over alternatives such as hydra_load, hydra_sketches, or hydra_share_url. There are no exclusions or alternative conditions, only the implied save-vs-load distinction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.